Category Archives: government

In Order to Form a More Panicked Union: Coronavirus, Government, and the “Freedom” to Fear (Part Five)

The State, the government, is a priest class acting technically and fundamentally, and no matter the documents (e.g. Constitution, Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence) and Ideals to which it appeals, upon what amounts to a divine, or mystical, mandate.  A “priest class” is much more accurate description than any pseudo-humble (e.g. public servant) or or formal (e.g public official) title. You see, since the State is comprised of members of the very same naturally defective and depraved human race over which it rules, the conundrum arises as to how to explain just how they have obtained a pass on their own existential insufficiency. Of course, collectivist metaphysics has no solution to this ostensible paradox (really, its a contradiction) except to appeal to mysticism and cosmic mystery. The priests of the State are able to rule simply because, well…just because. They have mystically and mysteriously obtained divine insight, enlightenment, and clairvoyance. Though we may pretend that they rule by popular mandate and by some objective validation of their character and actions, this is a defunct and irrational notion. For any people who can judge good character from bad, and thus are able to decide who will and who will not be given politcal rule over them, and will put their intellectual and moral erudition into practice by engaging in free and open elections in order that they may be duly and justly governed, do not need to be governed in the first place. Those who possess the innate, natural capacity to apprehend objective truth and morality and to exercise will and choice in service to those virtues have no need to be forced into “right thinking” and “right action” by the violent coercive force of centralized authoritative power which is formally established and institutionalized for the very purpose of compelling them into obedience. They are quite capable of dealing with immorality and crisis cooperatively, voluntary, for the benefit of their individual lives and prosperity, all by themselves. They have no need of the gun barrel which incessantly prods them to and fro.

But of course, the very reason we have a State in the first place is that this description of man is rejected…the masses are not capable of apprehending morality and truth and the exercise thereof. Man’s mind and nature via his will are naturally corrupt and useless; he is fit only for the work that comes from obedience, and he shall be repaid only in more work and more cost and then death. He can never be in a position to know just why it is that the Authority is entitled to rule over him. He simply accepts that it is and that it does.

It is vociferously argued by, well, pretty much everyone from my experience, that of course we need government, and even more so in times of crisis, like the current pandemic, because otherwise the immoral, the incompetent, the uncaring, and the irresponsible among us (which includes all of us at root, you understand) would take selfish advantage of the situation, consciously or subconsciously, and exaserbate the destruction and suffering. We simply cannot trust some people to do the right thing. So naturally we all must be forced to do the right thing. Of course, this leads to an interesting question, yet I will not pontificate on it here: Which comes first, the depraved man who will not do the right thing thus demanding that we all must be compelled because of him, or the State which generates legions of these depraved men by pedddling the philosophy of the natural depravity of man? In other words, these evil men who take advantage of crisis…these criminals of the race…are they merely a metaphysical self-fulfilling prophecy? Well…certainly. But that’s another article.

So based upon the metaphysical principles upon which the State is established we of course must have government dictate our behavior, especially in uncertain times. In times of crisis god forbid we we allow people willy nilly the freedom to make their own choices as to how they shall handle it, without the oversight of the State in Charge. They cannot be permitted to move about freely and operate their businesses as they see fit. It would be an ineluctable disaster. People are just too stupid, ignorant, lazy, and evil to navigate such times as these (or any time, really, for that matter) on their own. That government, being magically immune to the inadequacy and evil of te the rest of us, is eminently capable in such times is taken as given. And this is because…well, just because. It’s magic. Like I said. The State is a mystical entity…who knows from whence its power and privilege and wisdom come. We just know that there it is.

Authority must be in charge of this crisis and everything else, too. We are bound by the foundational metaphysics which dictate the terms of our reality to accept that the Authority may comprehensively destroy lives and civilization in order to save them. And have faith…trust those in charge. For if anyone can act with wisdom, reason, responsibility, contentiousness, discipline, and morality it is those who are in power precisely because the rest of humanity is entirely unworthy of these things, and possesses no actual ability to recognize them in the first place. What could go wrong?

And so here it is that we must realize then that absolutely none of these things—-wisdom, reason, responsibility, etc.—have anything to do with the government at all. The Authority-Submission relationship which exists between citizens and State renders all of them moot. The Authority which has the divine right to demand your obedience and to annihilate you for your failure to do so has no obligation to treat you with any of these virtues. The Authority commands and you comply. That’s it. That is the sum and substance of your relationship and usefulness to the ruling class. For you to believe that you are entitled to any consideration in the actions of your rulers is to be utterly ignorant of your position in the collectivist universe. That you may hold those who own you to any expectation or standard of behavior is the zenith of infantile ignorance.

The coronavirus, whether you live or die, will only ever do one thing…and it’s the same thing as every other context in which you find yourself when you are ruled: reveal you to be the impotent, natural failure that collectivist metaphysics says you are. Period. Full stop.

Your worried about the virus? Why? You’re dead already.



In Order to Form a More Panicked Union: Coronavirus, Government, and the “Freedom” to Fear (Part Four)

As I have discussed several times in articles in the past, the metaphysical premise of government is that the individual does not possess any efficacy to his own existence. Left to themselves, individuals, and via them the entire human race, are doomed to extinction; their inherent lack of existential sufficiency (innate and natural inability to exist, which is of course a philosophical and biological contradiction in terms) demands an Authority tasked with dictating the behavior of the masses, along with their thoughts and emotions, either implicitly or explicitly depending on the form government. In other words, the individual must be collectivized, which means Idealized, into a single abstract sociopolitical unit. This abstract politcal unit is then ruled; the individual is thus excluded from the politcal equation by default…he is rendered moot and by this the human race is assured its continued existence. And if this all seems remarkably specious, that’s because it is. Which is why societies which are governed never get more free, only less so as time goes on. Freedom, you see, is outright anathema to government…your government’s laws are obeyed; choice is not required. This Authority/Submisstion dynamic is by definition mutually exclusive of freedom.

Individual, or Individualist metaphysics, despite the necessary and objective singularity of consciousness each human being possesses, are thought by those conceding either tacitly or overtly collectivist metaphysics to be totally erroneous. The individual must be forced upon pain of death or imprisonment (which is essentially the same thing from a rational philosophical perspective) to act and think this way and that because he lacks the natural capacity to understand and act upon what is proper and true on his own. The individual, as I said, is forced into an abstract cohesive sociopolitical unit (in the case of the United States, where I am, this unit is called, nebulously, “The People”), and he is forced by the means of Authority and Law; there is no cooperation either implied nor implemented except that which is purely for political show…there are superficial overtures to “representation” and “free elections”, but these have absolutely nothing to do with how the masses shall exist under the ruling classes in the long term, and in general principle—power teeter-totters back and forth between democrats and republicans but the inexorable slide towards totalitarianism continues unabated. Asking the people to vote for their political overlords is little more than asking them to put the yoke on their necks themselves so that their masters don’t need to risk a blister or a wrenched shoulder by doing it for them.

Under the awning of authority and legality, naturally cooperation and morality are nullified. Thus, the choice of the individual, his very will, is undermined with respect to his existence in the sociopolitical unit, and fundamentally nullified, and thus so is his very mind and his very Self. And this, we are told, is a necessity which exists in service to the propagation of the human species (meaning that choice, will, and Self is antithetical to the ongoing existence of the human race). The species, being a strictly biological and thus a deterministic phenomenon, and thus a scientific expression of collectivist metaphysics, further “proves” the purely “illusory” nature of the individual’s sense of a singular Self. At every turn the individual is denied his reality and his existence, and inevitably falls in line with the masses, marching along in unison, despite the undulations of superficial expressions of individuality, towards the charnel houses where they finally give up the last of their meat, mutton, leather, feather, and wool to the increasingly sharpened knives of the ruling classes (and these superficial expressions of inidividuality  become more and more superficial over time as people become less and less critical in their thinking, more and more illiterate—which negatively affects their ability to self-express and to rationally evaluate their environment, and self-worth becomes increasingly a matter of rank materialism).

What is both shocking and at the same time no so shocking is the pervasiveness of the notion that the individual is simply an illusion…a trifling hiccup in the otherwise perfect mathematical laws of physics, biology, and evolution. People accept the collectivist metaphysics of the determinist philosophy of the “hard sciences” and therefore never think to object to the collectivist metaphysics of the State. They accept the legitimacy and efficacy and necessity of government just as assuredly as they accept that the sun will set in the evening and rise in the morning. The insufficiency then of the individual at his very root and natural level to cope with all that his existence and his prosperity requires is seen as ipso facto in light of collectivism’s “hard, scientific, and empirical evidence”. This leads humanity in general to conclude, either consciously or subconsciously, that cooperation, value exchange, non-aggression, personal responsibility, moral will and moral choice are ultimately insufficient to manage…well, anything…and certainly not a crisis like , say, a pandemic.

In short, the collectivist metaphysics we accept demand that the masses ineluctably outsource their existence to a very small group of people who function in essence as priests, and who use what essentially amounts to Divine Authority to coerce the masses by threats and violence into “right” thinking and “right” behavior…all for the benefit of humanity, of course, even though “humanity” by the collectivist metaphysical definition simply cannot include the individual. And this means, inevitably, that the individual never really sees the benefit he is promised by his rulers. All relevant fortune and power wind up in the hands of the State (and we must include the “unelected” powers-that-be who fund the State or otherwise exercise irresistible influence, and use it to their own advantage…the State never includes only the out-and-out politician). Because the State, you see, is humanity; there is no real humanity outside of it. The government, in other words, is you for you. You, in other words, are really nothing at all. And so it is that following any crisis, be it actual or contrived, the government always ends up stronger and the masses always weaker, no matter what the outcome is in practicality.

END part four

In Order to Form a More Panicked Union: Government, Coronavirus, and the “Freedom’ to Fear (Part Three)

We left off in the last article in this series with the following:

“So you survive this pandemic, as the vast, vast majority of us will, and you stay healthy. But so what? Who do you think “you” are, anyway?”

So let’s continue.

You don’t get to decide whether you keep your business open or not, or whether your employees continue to get paid or not, or whether to accept the risk or not, or whether your savings will fund your retirement or not. So how do you think that you get to decide how healthy you stay or not; or to what extent you survive or not? If you survive the pandemic but pay dearly for it through the incompetencies, overreaction, and propaganda of the State and their carnival barkers, the media, and the information garbage dumb of social media, which create disastrous and multigenerational consequences for the economy, the political substratum, and the the social dynamics of the nation, then how exactly is this “survival” except in the most technical and most pointless sense of the word? You survive at your expense, you see. Which is a contradiction in terms. You are not at root cooperating in handling the cirises; you are not engaging your reason, your logic, your critical thinking, and your context, and making the best choices for you and your family and your finances and your business and your neighbors. No. You are being pointed thither and hither by the muzzle of a gun, and doing this or that as you are directed by an Authority which possesses the legal right to decide what a crisis is or is not, what is “essentional” or not, who may work and who may not, what products may be sold and what may not, and thus what you may own and what you may not, and where you may go, and what you may do, etc.,etc..

And the “you” that the goverment is doing this “for” is not you at all. It is a collectivized ideal of you. A figment; an abstract; a gauzy concept. The State doesn’t know you, your family, your context, your needs beyond the stats and actuary tables of goverment agencies, lobbyists, bureaucrats, and “fact-finding” commissions, and that’s how it defines you, and always will. And the difference between handling a crisis yourself and/or of actually cooperating (entirely absent the threat of violence) with others in a crisis, and being told how you will handle it by a master is that in the former case your survival is an expression and a validation of you; in the latter, it is an exploitation of you; it is at your expense. It is not actually for you at all. In the first case your competence and worthiness and intelligence and reason is revealed, and magnified. In the second, the State is magnified. Under the auspicies of the Authority of the State you are nothing more than either an expression of State or a hinderance to it, in which case you are threatened, and if you do not comply , you are eliminated. Your actions are dictated in times of crisis, as in any other time, and thus your “survival” is but another rank expression of the State. Those who do not survive…well, perhaps the outcome would have been different in a truly free and voluntary social, political, and economic context…one of Freedom not slavery; but at any rate you’ll noticed that the dead do not ever represent the failure of the State (at best it might be said to be a failure of this or that politician/administration). The favorite target of the ire of those dismayed at the body count is not the State, itself, and the specious collectivist philosophical principles upon which it is established, but the “deniers” and “doubters” who are labeled selfish and blind for not immediately accepting the superficial and propagandistic narrative spun by government, media, and the social media slag heap. Yes, anyone who questions the official yarn, everyone who dares ask for more freedom in times of pandemic, not less; for less government control, not more, will be scapegoated as the cancer which metastasizes in the virus. The only criticism of the State will be rooted in the idea that it did not exercise more power, sooner. And thus more control in the future, not less, will be the demand. And thus even the “failure” of the State in time of crisis, such as it is, is really just an affirmation of its efficacy, righteousness, and necessity.

END part three

In Order to Form a More Panicked Union: Coronavirus, Government, and the “Freedom” to Fear (Part Two)

Picking up where we left off in part one, we were looking at the numbers of this new pandemic. Obviously, today, the numbers have risen, but the morality rates and the ratio of sever/critical to mild cases remains consistent; the deaths per one million average out to about 2.4 at the time of this writing. My reference for these numbers comes from a fairly straightforward academic site:

Now, if one were thinking rationally, or at least, going by common sense, and seeing how prevalent numbers are in the carpet-bombing, non-stop media coverage of this pandemic, one would presume that the numbers actually matter. You see the numbers, do some basic elementary school math, factor in some unknown variables like possibility of virus mutation and the fact that deaths are factored more heavily into the predictions at the beginning of pandemics, make some comparisons to past pandemics of a similar sickness, and you can get at least a ballpark understanding of how concerned you should actually be and what your level of preparedness should look like.

But consistently we are told, either directly or indirectly, that this is not so. Either the numbers are said to be too simple or too comlicated for the average citizen to use for any particular purpose…which makes one wonder why so many numbers are bandied about in the first place. But of course, we don’t wonder long, do we? Because really we already know. The numbers, like any other information, are merely a conveyance of propaganda. So, yes, we are told that the numbers are too simple, or too complicated, too insubstantial or irrelevant, all while we are carpet-bombed with random, sensationalized, non-contextual death tolls, ventelator shortages, healthcare staff sickness, or other such rank emotional manipulation. The numbers won’t help you know or even guess as to what degree you should worry, or prepare, or plan, or change you life. And this of course is ironic in this postmodern, anti-religious, anti-philosophical hellscape we’ve created in the West, where science is the answer to absolutely everything, and God is dead, and mathematics is the “language of the Universe”. But, again, we know, don’t we? As with everything else, numbers mean only what the unwashed masses like you and I are told they mean by the Authorities—the tacit or overt emissaries of the State.


People who are ruled, and who have been ruled for thousands and thousands of years and throughout countless generations, under the auspices of the State—the Absolute Coercive Authority—some of which are explicit, like the communist autocracies, and some implicit, like Western “representative” democracies, do not actually live in a state of emotional or psychological freedom any more than they live in a physical one. These ruled people have been condition over thousands of years by government that their existence shall be fundamentally dictated to them. They shall be told what they may own; what they may do; where they may go; what they may say; and thus it is inevitable that they shall be told then what they may think, and corollary to this, what they may feel. And that is why the numbers don’t matter. Oh yes…that’s right. They don’t matter. They really don’t. At the end of the day, how you react to this pandemic or any other crisis really isn’t up to you at all. Whether it wipes out the whole human race or none of it, you will behave and feel exactly how you are told. You think you will stay calm? Not if your job is eliminated overnight by government directives to shut down all “non-essential businesses”. The fact that that the business may be essential to those who say, own the business, and have invested their life savings into it deosn’t matter. The fact that it may be essential to those who are living paycheck to paycheck doesn’t matter. Because we…because you don’t get to define “essential”. You think you won’t panic if the State and their propaganda ministry tell you to panic? “Hold my beer” says the State, and see the empty shelves, the plummeting stockmarket and your future with it manifest right before your very eyes. Just like magic.


If the government has the power to force businesses to close and lay off their employees during a crisis, and the government is that institution which will ultimately determine the definition of “crisis” and “essential”, and what is or is not these things, and via their overwhelming violent power with which they thus may dictate to you how you shall handle a crisis economically, then it is foolishness to think that you shall dictate to yourself how you shall feel about the crisis. In other words, not only do you not have the freedom to work or not work depending on the actions and opinion of the State, you do not have the freedom to fear or not fear. If the State decides the crisis is to be feared, even in spite of any objective or logical rendering of the numbers and reality (and even if the numbers did warrant fear, your interpretation of the numbers is irrelevant) then fear you shall. For even if you do not fear this new virus, itself, the moment you are told your retirement fund has tanked and that there is no retirement for you next year, you’ll fear. When your baby comes down with a high fever and you find no medicine at the store and no assurance that you’ll ever find it on the shelves again, you’ll fear. When you turn on or read the news and hear the endless apocalyptic headlines of the state-controlled media, you’ll fear. When you are told that the oral cancer or vision loss that you now have could have been prevented if your annual checkup hadn’t been cancelled because they weren’t considered “essential”, you’ll fear. When you show up for work and are told that your job has been terminated indefinitely, you’ll fear.

Now, obviously not everyone will experience these situations, and obviously not everyone will fear…that isn’t my point, and I hope I’ve made it clear enough for you to see this. Of course I’m speaking in a generality…that is, a mass, society-wide context of doom and hopelessness will be conjured by the State which wants to see it done, based on their power to do so. Not all of us individually need to fear for fear to be nationally pervasive, and this based on how quickly and easily government can manipulate the social context.

So yes, those who have been explicitly or implicitly telling me that the numbers don’t mean anything are actually right. I have been wrong to think they do. But the reason the don’t mean anything is because the numbers, like existence in general under the auspices of the State—the monopoly of coercive force—cannot have any practical effect beyond what the ruling classes desire. And we can see it happening now. The coronavirus numbers are low, the death-toll nowhere near any other significant pandemic in history per world population, the promulgation rate even lower (though of course this can change), and yet here we are. Unmitigated, overt, objective world-panic. And on the obverse side of the coin, say the half the population of the United States was dead and half of the other half were infected and likely to die, I submit that if the government and the media and the opportunistic talking-heeads on the the world’s greatest information garbage dump of all time, YouTube, where 90% of the channels are infested with people who are utterly unqualified to discuss whatever it is they are discussing…yes, if all of these told us not to panic, and to remain calm, and to go to work and try to live as normallly as possible, that’s exactly what we’d be doing. And you might say that’s implossible, but look at what’s happening now. A tiny fraction of the United States is infected with a relatively harmless eastern virus and the economy is almost literally halted overnight, with lockdowns and shutdowns and home quarantines that one doesn’t see even in countries at war. If this current scenario can happen, then so can the other.

It’s not up to you; it’s not up to reason, or common sense, or the numbers, or logic, or reality. In a crisis, you don’t get to say how you’re going to deal with it. Government can shut down whole industries at the point of a gun, overnight, at will. In the face of that kind of power it’s foolishness to assume you have any control over how you will think or feel or what you will do in a time of crisis. You exist, my friend, in a social, politcal, and economic context that has been dictated to you. The proof that you are not thinking logically is your belief that logic has anything to do with it in the first place. For even if you do happen to think logically, of what use is that logic to you? You will do as you are told, and there is the gun, like the sword of Damocles, ready to pounce the moment you try to act on any logic of your own, on your own. We are all in this together, as they say. And oh the massive irony that this is intended to comfort us. That’s funny.

So you survive this pandemic, as the vast, vast majority of us will, and you stay healthy. But so what? Who do you think “you” are, anyway?

END part two

In Order to Form a More Panicked Union: Coronavirus, Government, and the “Freedom” to Fear (Part One)

Consider this hypothetical scenario: A new pandemic is sweeping the globe. It rivals or exceeds the worst in human history. It looks to infect the vast majority of the population; it has a 60, 70, or 80% mortality rate. In response, governments have completely shut borders, instituted draconian measures to control businesses, the economy, the stock market. People are out of work indefinitely, savings and retirement funds are quickly disintegrating, large-scale government money printing and massive debt are being incurred by the State to stave off total economic collapse, politcal rallies are canceled, future free elections uncertain, government control of healthcare and the means of production are only inches away, stay-at-home-orders are issued making social gatherings outside the home illegal, and punishable by stiff fines or worse. Shelves at stores are emptying at rates that exceed demand; basic necessities like cold medicines, paper products, household cleanears, diapers, and hand-satntizers, are nowhere to be found. Everywhere is panic; conspiracy theories abound—it’s a bio-weapon, it’s Gods’ punishment for our sins, it’s the Chinese waging war against the West; the media in all forms carpet bombs the headlines with warnings of the end of humanity, possibly, and certainly life as we know it.

What is your reaction to this?

Your upset. Anxious. Uncertain. But you understand. It’s a dangerous pandemic, after all. Perhaps we are overreacting, but you can never be too careful. It’s a scary and dangerous time, and we need to hunker down and do our part to get through it as best we can.

Now, imagine this hypothetical scenario:

A new pandemic has made its way around the world. There are pockets where it is more prevalent, even to the point of an 8% mortality rate, but in most places the morality rate is about 4%, with a few hundred or a few thousand only being infected so far. In the epicenter country, the numbers have leveled out, new cases are falling. In approximately six months, in a world of 7.8 billion people, and at the time of this writing, approximately only 360 thousand have been infected, with about 15,550 deaths, and in many, many countries the numbers of infected are below even 50; the pandemic is affecting a fraction of the global population which is so small that it pales in comparison to deaths from even things as common as smoking, car accidents, diabetes, and heart disease. It’s so small, in fact, that it’s barely worth talking about. Certainly there is a danger that the virus responsible for the pandemic could mutate and become much more dangerous, but for now the the trends concerning mortality rates, severity of the disease, and new cases, remains consistent.

The word’s response to this pandemic, however, is exactly the same as the more profound one described above. Exactly the same.

What is your reaction?

I’m crazy, you’d say. That could never happen. What a silly hypothetical scenario. Responses to crises are proportionate. You don’t put out a match with a firehouse, after all. Everyone knows that.

And yet here we are. What I mean is that scenario number two isn’t actually hypothetical at all. It’s happening right outside your window. Right now. Out there.

The pandemic is called Covid-19, a novel strain of the common family of coronaviruses. The response is called “government and humanity no longer being worthy of faith”.

END part one

The Law is at War with You (Part 3, Conclusion)

At the beginning of this article series, I opened with the question: Without the law what is to prevent someone from committing evil action X should they have the opportunity; and what then is the consequence?

From this question, often asked by apologists for legal ethics (those who assume that Coercive Authority, i.e. the State, is utterly necessary for human ethics to exist), two things can be assumed beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that the law is not necessary to declare moral value—indeed, that moral value must be known before the law exists (e.g. law is to prevent evil action X, an action of which its moral evil warrants the creation-intervention of law). And second, that evil has no negative consequence without law.

The idea that there is no consequence for immoral action absent law presents us with a contradiction; this contradiction is “resolved” by rejecting morality entirely, and replacing it with legality. Here is the contradiction: by asserting that there is no negative consequence for immoral action, an immoral action can no longer be defined as immoral. You see, in ethics, it is axiomatic that action and consequence are corollary, yet the law “splits” this corollary by making action a function of moral ethics and consequence a function of legal ethics. But morality and legality are two completely distinct ethical systems, each with its own very specific premises and corollaries and conclusions, and, most importantly, its own metaphysical foundation. (Morality is based upon will and choice, its metaphysics are individualist; legality is based upon authority and coercive force, its metaphysics are collectivist). They simply cannot be merged/integrated in any rational or efficacious way. So what happens is that morality by default becomes merely propagandistic conveyance for the implementation of legality, whereupon morality is discarded by the Authority (ruling class) and replaced with legality as the author and arbiter of the ethical value of both action and consequence. And this is done quite naturally, and is not necessarily consciously conceived by those arguing for the State and the Rule of Law or the ruling class. For as soon as we assume and accept that consequence must be a function of the law, then it becomes impossible to determine the ethical value of an action without also appealing to the law; and this is due to the inherent mutual exclusivity between legal ethics and moral ethics. This is the nature of ethics.

All of this being the case, in response to the question at the top of this article, we are forced to reply as follows:

Wihout law, why should we think that evil action X is in fact evil? In other words, how do we know that action X, or engaging in action X, is a bad thing?

The answer is of course that we do not; we cannot. Because by asking the question we necessarily concede that legality, not morality, is the only relevant and possible ethical system. Outside of the law, there is no ethic. Any action outside the law cannot by definition be called illegal, and thus it cannot be called unethical, and thus it cannot be called “bad”. The law, in accordance with the logical rules of ethics, is both prescriptive and proscriptive. It dictates which actions are good or bad (or said another way, it dictates the goodness or badness value of a given action) and it dicatates the consequences for actions. The law declares what you must do and what you must not (which is fundamentally oxymoronic, because one cannot do a “not”….so the law fundamentally dicates all behavior at root). And this is why law has nothing at all to do with choice and will. Human action is fundametally driven by individual will. But will is not recogniznzed by law, which by nature is coercive, not cooperative, which is why as time goes by, the law—the State, the Ruling Class—becomes more and more oppressive; it smothers humanity, it does not, and cannot, free it. The nature of the law is to dictate, not emancipate. Law rejects human choice and will, it does not provide some kind of cohesive and moral context for them. The “freeing power of democratic law” is just lie you have been told to make you more amenable to the whims of the ruling class, nothing more. You are coerced by very persuasive, euphonious, idealistic indoctrination, which is much cheaper and more profitable than state terrorism, gulags, guillotines, death squads, and gas chambers, and less messy as well. The chattel bear more service and substance if they walk willingly to their cages and pastures than if they struggle or try to run away. Though terror, gulags, guillotines, death squads, and gas chambers, or some manifestation thereof, will eventually appear no matter how ostensibly democratic a system is…and there are reasons for this, but they are a subject for another article.

Finally, I will end with this:

The law does not provide a context for the implementation of efficacious morality. Law is, according to the ethics of morality, entirely opposed to moral behavior.

In other words, the law is categorically immoral.


The Law is at War with You (Part 2)

In part one of this essay series, I concluded with the declaration that the law is not a means of enforcing moral ethics, or a conveyance of them, but is in fact a replacement of them. And it is on this point that I would like to elaborate.

Most of us assume, because we are indoctrinated to do so from our very first breath, that the law, as a tool of moral ethics, has to do with willful action and consequence. That is, if your willful action is to break the law, your consequence is punishment under the law. But this is not actually so. When dealing in legality, we are inexorably and necessarily simultaneously dealing in Authority. The law and the authority to enforce the law are indeed corollary…without an Authority to force compliance and punishment according to the law, then the law cannot be manifest. Law, absent authority, in other words, has no consequence…and therefore its commands have no substance, and therefore the law does not exist in any practical sense. Said another way, once people have a choice as to whether or not they will obey the law, then there is no law. The very nature of law is to disregard choice entirely…that’s the whole point. If someone chooses to disobey, then the law shall punish them. That’s how the whole thing works. One’s choice to disobey the law does not get them out from under it…not at all. It merely invites punishment according to the law. The law does not recognize your choice as legitimate, and that is why you are punished according to the law when you disobey it. If your choice was recognized as legitimate by law, then there would be no punishment for disobedience. Punishment exists in legal ethics precisely as a means to nullify choice, not to affirm it. Before your choice can result in a consequence which fundamentally satisfies that choice, the law steps in to punish you. Instead of a natural consequence to your exercise of individual will, you will relinquish your money to the State, or suffer garnished wages, or a jail cell, or a firing squad, a noose, guillotine, cross, electric chair, needle…etc.. At the very least, you spend your days “on the run” and in hiding. In any case, the point is that the law steps in long before any true, natural consequence of your free choice can ever manifest.

But of course this is not what most of us suppose…we are taught that punishment (and also reward) is a consequence of choice. If the law punishes the “evildoer” then it is because he is simply “reaping what he sows”. If he had not chosen to disobey, then he would not have been punished. However, this is not in reality how law works. Obedience, by definition, has nothing to do with choice, yet it has everything to do with law. One does not choose to obey, for that is a contradiction in terms. One obeys legal commands, or else one is punished. The commands are dictated by the Authority; the punishment is likewise and equally dictated by the Authority. Both the commands of the law and the punishment for disobedience of the law are equal manifestations of the Authority. They are One, and man is obligated to it. He will either obey, regardless of what he wants, or he will be punished, regardless of what he wants. Said another way: He will either obey, regardless of what he’d rather choose, or he will be punished, regardless of what he’d rather choose. The command to “obey or else” hasn’t the least bit to to with individual will, and thus hasn’t the least to do with choice. The law is dictated TO man; it is not a product of his will, then, but of the will (and whim) of the Authority, which is predicated upon a collective Ideal into which humanity is to be forced, not Individual agency exercised as choice. Man is born into law—he belongs to it, NOT vice versa. And law is a giant rock which is falling on his head; he may move out from under it, but only by stepping off a cliff and onto the jagged rocks below. In this situation, the choice he makes leads to the exact same conclusion, having nothing fundamentally to do with him or his choice at all. And that’s the whole idea. That’s LAW.

From this, a fundamental truth now becomes clear, where before it was hidden and obscured by layers and layers of misunderstanding, disinformation, misinformation, rationally bankrupt philosophy, and sadistic self-loathing tradition: law doesn’t have anything to do with individual action and consequence. At all. Your actions are compelled, thus denying your will, which denies your mind, which denies your singular consciousness (your awareness of Self), which denies your root individual nature, which denies your existence entirely. Manifestations of individuality, like choice (true, objective freedom) are thus ipso facto illegal…which simply means that they not recognized as existentially legitimate and natural. Law is philosophically collectivist, not Individualist. It compels man against his will by collectivizing him and then directing and defining the collective whole into Its legal obligation to serve the Authority (ruling class). And it compels man necessarily against his will because it does not recognize his will, because it does not recognize his individuality. The law views man’s existence as fundamentally collective, thus making man a function of an Idealized reality, not a rational reality. The Ideal is an abstract, the collective thus likewise an abstract, the collective becomes an ironic monolithic entity, and man the individual is thus forced to live in this dream-reality which the State (the Authority/ruling class) intends to make manifest by coercive FORCE, and the law serves as the blueprint and ethical exuse for the resultant bloodshed. This is how the State excuses its mass murder of millions of men and women on the battlefields of governemnt wars and other places whilst simultaneously condemning every random “lawbreaker”—a tax avoider, a drug dealer, a man operating a barber shop without a business license—as a moral villain to be ridiculed as an affront to human prosperity and progress.

The law, my friends, is not a natural context for action and consequence, as if it is merely an expression of object and endemic human free agency, where we all just get together and happily agree to play by the rules. Without a ruling class, there are no legal rules! Those rules we all followed as kids in our games of backyard sports, or tag, or pretend play, these are not law! They are rules without the ruler…which makes them the opposite of law: cooperation based upon an arrant individual willingness to be part of the game, without threat of punishment, nor any means to effect punishment for withdrawing or choosing not to play, save the loss of maybe a little face, or at worst separation from that particular group of individuals merely due to disparate individual interests, upon which another group may be joined, or not.

This is voluntarism, not collectivism. It is not the State, it is Stateless.  It is not legality, it is morality. It is not obligation to Authority, it is the freedom to act morally.

END part 2

The Law is at War with You (Part 1)

If the question is “Without the law what is to prevent or dissuade someone from (committing this or that evil action) should they have the opportunity and should they feel like it; and what then is the consequence?”  …yes, if this is the ethical question with respect to the law, and it is, then we can argue that the law is not necessary to determine the moral value of the action in question. Indeed, we can argue that to even ask the question in the first place is to admit that moral judgement must already have been rendered upon the action. So we know that by the very (ostensible) point of the law in the first place—to dissuade men from and to punish men for evil actions—that law itself has nothing to do with how and why actions are morally valued. In other words, if an action can be valued as “good” or “bad” outside the law, and indeed this value is an a priori premise of the law, then it can be concluded that the law has nothing at all fundamentally to do with moral ethics. And this is very important. Because what this means is that the law can neither fundamentally promotes moral action nor provides for moral consequence.

Let me explain.

Moral ethics are often the ostensible reason why men feel the need to apply law in defense of morality, but those who are committed to law as a conveyance of morality rarely, if ever, claim that law is the means by which morality is defined. And this makes sense, as the very definition of ethics as a bonafide philosophical category must include both action and consequence of  action—these are corollary. In other words, even men who are comitted to law as a means to implement morality accept that the morality of both actions and consequences are wholly defined and understood apart from the law. Said another way, even those who promote the law as a defense of morality tacitly admit that morality is a fully-formed, complete, self-sustaining/self-contained, comprehensive ethical system. It already describes what is good and bad, and therefore it necessarily describes the consequences of good and bad actions, and how to promote the former and prevent the other. The moral value of an action and the corollary moral value of its consequence necessarily imply the moral means of defending and promoting morality. Moral ethics don’t actually need the law. At all.

Which begs the question: why do we have law then?

I’ll get to that. But I suspect you already know/have figured it out.

Law is instituted in defense of morality only after moral actions and consequences have already been observed, defined, and understood. Ergo: “We must have law in order to prevent/punish people from/for doing this or that BAD thing”. That is, law is seen to be a tool of moral ethics. But here’s the problem: it has nothing actually to do with moral ethics…and this is the grand ethical irony. The Ethics of Morality already provide the utility for which the law is said to be necessary. In other words, in any true, legitimate ethical system—of which morality is indeed the only rationally consistent example—the prevention of and consequence for unethical action is endemic to the system. Morality provides for its own conveyances of prevention and consequence. It does not need the law…the law, as far as moral ethics goes, is utterly superfluous. Morality already endemically declares that “if thou do X then thou shall necessarily reap Y”. The future prevention of negative moral action X is the example/experience of reaping of the necessary corollary moral negative consequences of Y…both of which are defined and understood according to morality, not according to the law.

Which brings us to the next point in this essay series: The law then, by deduction of relatively simple logic, is not a tool of morality but a replacement of it. It does not save or protect the innocent, it wrecks the distinction between the morally innocent and the morally guilty, and places the declaration of ethical value squarely in the hands and the whims of a subjective ruling class (Governing Authority…the State). The establishment of a ruling class  is, as a fundamental premise, is the deposing of morality and the institution of legality in its place. And this is necessarily the death of humanity, not the salvation of it.

END part one

Why Our Government Can’t See Any of Us

If my fundamental social context is one where I operate as a function of what someone else will allow—that is, existence under the auspices of ruling authority (legal ethics, which is forced compliance)—then I can never really know who I am. Because what I am at root is a function of what I think, and what I think is corollary to what I desire, or will, which is corollary to what I choose. But if my social context is fundamentally one of forced compliance, and my choices fundamentally a function of what the Authority will allow, then choice is only relative, and my desire and therefore my thought, my mind, is never really of me. It’s of the Authority which seeks to exist through me, and in spite of the real me.

Within such a context, any claim of any citizen that they would prefer “more freedom” is merely a claim that they would prefer to be allowed more choice…but “allowed choice” is a fundamental contradiction in terms. He who wields the power to allow me to choose is he who is at root utterly in control of my choices, which puts him in practical control of my will and thus my mind and thus my SELF…in which case there is no actual me at all.  So “more freedom” here is just an iteration of authority over me—the power to compel me against my will. There is no such thing as freedom within the context of ruling authority (the State/Government). It’s an illusion at best; but mostly it’s just a bromide.

Under the umbrella of ruling authority where my will is only “allowed” to be expressed, I am functioning merely as an expression of the ruler’s power to compel. Therefore, I, my SELF, have no actual value to the social equation. I’m a pawn in the plans of the ruling class, period, full stop. I don’t exist to them, and never did. We recoil at the thought of  a handful of people being shot to death in a movie theater by a psychopathic teenager, calling it a “senseless slaughter”, but we sing songs of heroism and tribute to and get all teary-eyed and sentimental about the thousands slaughtered in the span of minutes on the battlefields of government wars. This is because we are taught that in the context of doing things for “our country”, which fundamentally can only mean the State, which fundamentally means the ruling class, there is no such thing as an individual. And you cannot “senselessly slaughter” people who don’t actually exist. Death by the thousands and millions in defense of the collective ruling class is glorious; death by the handful via one acting “illegally” is a pointless tragedy.

Let us wake from our cognitive dissonance.


“‘What is Government?’ Answered in One Paragraph”

What is government? Well, it’s quite simple.

A group of violent people (aspiring ruling class) threaten the productive people with violence and take their property, then use some of the property to bribe the unproductive in exchange for greater power by which they further exploit the productive. Then the children of both the unproductive and the productive are indoctrinated into thinking that this arrangement mis a sociological virtue and a moral necessity. This goes on until the transfer of wealth from the productive to the ruling class (with the unproductive being the buffer between the ruling class and those they exploit…a combination of hired thugs and cannon fodder, to put it bluntly) must rely upon unsustainable debt, arrant political corruption, kangaroo courts and show trials, unfettered lower class immigration, and the distractions of circuses and sideshows and endless war, shortly after which the ruling class abandons the disaster and moves on to do it again somewhere else.

The end.